In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Nouvelle Théologie / New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II by Jürgen Mettepenningen
  • Joseph A. Komonchak
Jürgen Mettepenningen, Nouvelle Théologie / New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican ii. London: T & T Clark, 2010. Pp. 240. Paper $34.95. isbn 978-0-567-03410-6.

In this book the young Belgian scholar Jürgen Mettepenningen offers what he calls “a theological-historical reconstruction of the genesis and evolution of the nouvelle théologie.” Originally coined by its critics, this French phrase remains in common use today to refer to movements of theological, spiritual, and pastoral renewal within the Catholic Church in the three decades preceding the Second Vatican Council, which could safely be said to be their fruit and crown. Although some of the chief figures in these movements denied that there was any such single “new theology” being developed, Mettepenningen believes the designation can be freed usefully from its original negative meaning and used to characterize efforts to revitalize Catholic theology.

This largely French phenomenon, he argues, had three essential characteristics: the introduction of history into the theological project, a return to the sources of the faith, and an often severe criticism of neo-scholasticism. After a necessarily rapid description of the background and context in which this movement began, Mettepenningen discerns four phases in its development. Dominican theologians (Congar, Chenu, Féret, Charlier) were most prominent in the first phase (1935–42), seeking to overcome the limitations of what they called “baroque theology” by “a Thomistic ressourcement,” a return to the teaching and example of St. Thomas Aquinas. Jesuits (Bouillard, de Lubac, Daniélou) were prominent in the second phase (1942–50), seeking “a theological ressourcement,” a return to the Bible, to the Fathers, and to monastic theology. Both phases ended with Roman censures or condemnations of the principal publications because they were so critical of the ideal and the method of modern neo-scholasticism. The third phase (1950–62) saw “the internationalization of the nouvelle théologie” when German- and Dutch-speaking theologians brought it into areas outside of France and Belgium. The last phase saw the main features of the movement appropriated by and expressed in the texts of the Second Vatican Council (1962–5).

The heart of the book consists of three chapters devoted to the first three of these phases (how and where the nouvelle théologie influenced Vatican ii is not explored). These chapters contain much that is valuable, particularly the use made of archival material and the treatment of lesser-known figures. The book also represents the most detailed description in English of the often dramatic confrontations between theological schools and between the leaders of the movement and Roman authorities. The work is enriched by forty pages of endnotes and by a fine twenty-seven-page bibliography. There are some relatively minor errors here and there, and the English is sometimes clumsy and unclear.

Four critical comments may be made. The first is that while much attention is given to the infusion of historical consciousness into theology, the other major bone of contention between the theologians studied here and their critics is comparatively ignored. I mean the question of theological epistemology as a result of what is called “the turn to the subject” in philosophy. This also entered in to the vigorous debate about the nature and method of theology and deserves more attention.

Second, the chronological framework chosen is too constrictive. It prevents Mettepenningen from considering works by the authors studied that were written outside the time frame to which they are assigned. Little is said, for example, about Congar’s Vraie etfausse réforme dans l’Église or about de Lubac’s Catholicisme and Corpus mysticum.

Third, the desire to bring these several authors together as representatives of a single nouvelle théologie results in a neglect of the differences among them. One example is the difference between a Congar or a Chenu and a de Lubac on the significance of the Thomist achievement: whereas the Dominicans speak of theology achieving scientific status and consider this a good thing, the Jesuit regards it as a precarious and decidedly [End Page 158] ambiguous achievement...

pdf

Share